tfl traffic management...
TRANSCRIPT
The Temporary Traffic
Management Handbook
Guidance for Temporary Traffic Management & Highway
Works on the Transport for London Road Network
P a g e | 2
The Temporary Traffic Management
Handbook
P a g e | 3
AUTHORISATION
PREPARED BY
Name: Kevin Holland Position: Traffic Management Specialist
CHECKED BY
Name: TfL Traffic Management Working Group
APPROVED BY
Name: Position:
Version Revision Date
0.3 Draft 12/02/18
P a g e | 4
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6
1.1 About this Guidance ...................................................................................... 6
1.2 Background ................................................................................................... 6
1.3 General Principles ......................................................................................... 7
1.4 Legal Status .................................................................................................. 8
1.5 London-specific policy ................................................................................... 9
1.6 Road Safety Audits ..................................................................................... 10
1.7 Designer’s responsibilities ........................................................................... 11
1.8 Road works Patrols ..................................................................................... 12
1.9 Appendix 1A: Road Works Patrol Example Reort ....................................... 14
2 Cyclists at Road Works ...................................................................................... 22
2.1 Designing for Cyclists at Road Works ......................................................... 22
2.2 General Principles ....................................................................................... 22
2.3 Maintaining access for cycling..................................................................... 23
2.4 Temporary Signing for Cyclists ................................................................... 25
2.5 Avoiding cycle diversions ............................................................................ 26
2.6 Use of shared use footways ........................................................................ 27
2.7 Road closures and cycles ........................................................................... 28
2.8 Cycling and Lane widths ............................................................................. 30
2.9 Temporary speed reduction ........................................................................ 32
2.10 Barriers and cyclists ................................................................................. 33
2.11 Surface quality ......................................................................................... 33
2.12 Temporary traffic signals .......................................................................... 34
2.13 Works on the carriageway without cycle lanes ........................................ 34
2.14 Works on the carriageway with cycle lanes ............................................. 35
2.15 Works on cycle tracks .............................................................................. 37
2.16 Appendix 2A: Cyclists and temporary TM design checklist ...................... 39
2.17 Appendix 2B: Working drawing for Narrow lane do not overtake cyclists 41
2.18 Appendix 2C: Case Study – A Traffic Management Scheme on a
Segregated Cycle Track ....................................................................................... 42
3 Pedestrians at Road works ................................................................................ 44
P a g e | 5
3.1 Walking in London ....................................................................................... 44
3.2 Design Principles for Pedestrians ............................................................... 44
3.3 Inclusive access .......................................................................................... 45
3.4 Safe Routing ............................................................................................... 47
3.5 Footway Closures ....................................................................................... 48
3.6 Personal Safety and Security ...................................................................... 49
3.7 Pedestrian Barrier Selection........................................................................ 49
3.8 Temporary Pedestrian Signage and Information ......................................... 50
3.9 Working adjacent to or at permanent crossings .......................................... 52
3.10 Portable crossing facilities ....................................................................... 53
4 Feedback & Development ................................................................................. 54
4.1 Feedback .................................................................................................... 54
5 References ........................................................................................................ 54
P a g e | 6
1 Introduction
1.1 About this Guidance
1.1.1 This document should be used by all those planning, designing and operating
temporary traffic management associated with construction activities on the
highway in London. Its purpose is to deliver a high level of service to people
walking, cycling, using public transport or driving, to maintain the safety of
road users during works, including those undertaking the works, and to meet
TfL’s commitments to accessible environments under the Equality Act.
1.1.2 The document supplements existing legislative requirements and guidance
that industry professionals will be familiar with – Safety at Street Works and
Road Works: A Code of Practice (“the Redbook”), Chapter 8 of the Traffic
Signs Manual (“Chapter 8”) and he Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions (“TSRGD”).
1.1.3 For works on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), TfL expects
the guidance to be complied with. Elsewhere in London, the guidance
represents best practice and relevant local guidance that should be followed
in order to meet Mayoral policy. It will help deliver improved levels of safety,
comfort and security, resulting in a superior road user experience.
1.1.4 Any subsequent revisions to any information within this document will result in
a newly revised document being released with notes highlighting the main
new revisions.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Transport for London (TfL) is a key stakeholder in delivering the Mayor’s
Transport Strategy (MTS), which sets out policies and proposals that will
reshape London over the next 25 years
1.2.2 The MTS puts health and quality of life at the heart of planning London’s
transport, and uses the Healthy Streets Approach to describe and measure
how this will be delivered by TfL and the London boroughs. This means
creating streets that encourage walking, cycling and public transport use and
reduce car dependency and the health problems it creates. The Mayor’s
target is for 80 per cent of all journeys in London to be made by walking,
cycling or public transport by 2041.
1.2.3 Reducing road danger is an important element of making walking and cycling
attractive. The Mayor’s aim is to eliminate death and serious injury from road
collisions by 2041. This guidance is integral to supporting and promoting this
“Vision Zero” approach to road safety”.
P a g e | 7
1.2.4 The London road network is shared between TfL, Highways England, 32
London boroughs and the City of London. TfL manages the TLRN, more
widely recognised as the “red routes”, and is responsible for the maintenance,
management and operation of London’s 6,000+ sets of traffic signals.
Highways England manages the national motorway network, which includes
the M25, M1, M4 and M11. The vast majority of remaining roads are the
responsibility of the London Boroughs within their boundaries.
1.2.5 Part of TfL’s role is to keep London’s roads moving and we monitor the road
network continuously to ensure we respond rapidly to incidents and
congestion. We do this through the London Streets Traffic Control Centre
(LSTCC) which has access to more than 3,500 traffic cameras.
1.2.6 Supplementary to unplanned events TfL assesses and coordinates more than
80,000 permit applications a year for works on the TLRN, with the aim to
reduce disruption caused by road works. TfL also runs a lane rental scheme
and charge those carrying out works up to £2,500 a day for working in the
most congested areas or at busy times. This encourages work to be
completed during quieter times, and more quickly.
1.3 General Principles
1.3.1 The purpose of this document is to improve traffic management standards, to
improve safety, comfort levels, and the environment meets Mayoral objectives
by adopting the Healthy Streets Approach. This means ensuring that
temporary traffic management is a minimal deterrent to road users ensuring
streets and public spaces attract people from all walks of life and remain
places where people choose to walk, cycle or use public transport, even
when less space is available than before.
1.3.2 It is incumbent on local authorities to give priority through specific measures
to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport over vehicular traffic in urban
environments, including in temporary situations. This is set out in the Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, from the Department of Communities
and Local Government,
1.3.3 As a basic requirement, TfL requires designers and contractors to seek to re-
provide facilities obstructed or disrupted during the works, to maintain routes
with minimal disruption, as far as is reasonably practical, and to ensure those
routes offer maximum comfort and meet the minimum safety levels to comply
with the Redbook and Chapter 8.
P a g e | 8
1.3.4 The application of the established codes of practice tends to lead works
promoters and traffic management designers to solutions that are insufficient
in meeting the demands of road users in London. The emphasis is
accordingly on minimum requirements relating to safety, “aiming for a safety
performance no worse than the rate for non-works conditions” (Chapter 8
D1.4.2) and minimising delays for traffic passing the works or incident.
1.3.5 TfL has high expectations for the performance of TM in London. It requires
adherence to statutory requirements and measures to deliver a high level
service to users of the street and meeting specific requirements on inclusive
environments.
1.3.6 The impact of works should primarily be mitigated through minimising the area
of works, while maintaining safety zones and then seeking to provide the most
convenient routes past or through the works areas. If a direct route cannot
reasonably be maintained then robust measures should be put in place to
segregate and guide road users as appropriate.
1.3.7 TM designers should be mindful people may attempt to walk or cycle in ways
they are used to, even if their intended passage is made more difficult. This
applies, for example, to closing footways and crossings when there remains a
high demand for pedestrians to use them or requiring cyclists to dismount
when they could continue in the carriageway.
1.3.8 Signing should give information about the temporary conditions and should
not, in itself, be relied upon to change behaviour.
1.4 Legal Status
1.4.1 The TfL Traffic Management Handbook is applicable on the TLRN and is
supplementary to the Safety at Street Works and Road Works A Code of
Practice (the “Redbook”) – which has legal status under Section 65 of the
New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and Section 174 of the Highways Act
1980 and to Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. While it has no statutory
force in itself, it aims to assist designers in meeting their statutory
requirements in London. TfL recommends that designers and contractors
comply with the requirements which have further benefits in supporting the
Mayors Transport Strategy objectives.
1.4.2 This guidance relates to works being undertaken on the TLRN but may be
applicable for works on other urban roads in London and beyond. TfL accepts
no liability if the guidance is applied by other highway authorities and it is
strongly recommended designers and contractors should obtain early
guidance from the relevant Highway Authority.
P a g e | 9
1.4.3 Together, this advice includes consideration of:
The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which requires highway authorities, statutory undertakers and contractors to ensure the safety of the public and their own employees at road works sites.
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM), which places legal duties on clients, co-ordinators, designers and contractors to plan, co-ordinate and manage health and safety throughout all stages of a project.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSW), which establishes the need for work to be managed in a way that prevents accidents and ill health.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016(TSRGD) – traffic signs and other apparatus for the control of traffic must conform to TSRGD
1.5 London-specific policy
1.5.1 Beyond the statutory requirements, TfL are vested in improving comfort levels
in temporary situations for road users, to meet the requirements of the Mayors
Transport Strategy and in accordance with our Healthy Streets Approach to
managing our city. This approach is a system of polices and strategies to help
Londoners use cars less and walk, cycle and use public transport more.
1.5.2 This approach requires adherence to statutory requirements while also
delivering a high level service to users of the street according to the principles
of practicality, safety, inclusivity and legibility. These go above and beyond
responsibilities under the Equality Act and include the need to provide for
people using cycles as mobility aids, as described in the London Cycling
Design Standards (LCDS) and in the Accessible London Supplementary
Planning Documents (SPD).
1.5.3 The Mayor and TfL are committed to a Healthy Streets approach to the design
and management of London’s streets and public spaces, where people are at
the centre of transport planning. This emphasises: measures to encourage
walking, cycling and use of public transport; reduction of road danger; tackling
poor air quality; reducing car dependency; improving the environment; and
delivering an accessible and inclusive transport system.
P a g e | 10
1.5.4 TfL will deliver Healthy Streets through adopting a holistic approach to
planning, designing and managing our streets and public transport network.
This means measuring success in terms of quality of life and health benefits,
as well as transport and mobility benefits. The underlying principle is that
making more attractive and inviting places will encourage people to use the
street environment in an active way.
1.5.5 When works are necessary on the road network, we expect that commitment
to Healthy Streets to be maintained. Walking and cycling should still be
positive, attractive choices for people. It is our policy to prioritise walking,
cycling and public transport and this guide will help ensure this approach is
incorporated into the traffic management design process and to provide a
level of service that is as close as reasonably practicable to the permanent
arrangement. This forms part of our commitment to Healthy Streets and our
encouragement of active travel under all conditions.
1.5.6 To help meet Healthy Streets objectives, TfL therefore expects traffic
management on the TLRN to be:
Practical, providing realistic ways of enabling movement that minimise disruption for people
Safe, minimising collision risk with a sensible balance between practicality and risk mitigation, and feeling comfortable to use at all times of day
Inclusive, allowing comfortable passage for people of all abilities, and prioritising those for whom a barrier or diversion could compel them to take uncomfortable, risky or significantly more physically demanding alternatives
Legible, being easily understood and unambiguous for all users
1.6 Road Safety Audits
1.6.1 A Road Safety Audit (RSA) may be required for temporary traffic management
schemes. For TfL projects the sponsor will initiate the RSA but for works
external to TfL the Network Management directorate will identify when it is
required.
1.6.2 The Road Safety Audit National Standard HD19 states:
This Standard is not generally required for application to temporary
traffic management schemes. The Department for Transport
publication “Safety at Street Works and Road Works A Code of
Practice” and Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual contain the
necessary guidance to facilitate the safe planning and implementation
of temporary traffic management activities. However, Road Safety
Audit should be applied to exceptional temporary traffic management
P a g e | 11
schemes that involve temporary changes to the layout and operation of
junctions or realignment of roads that will affect the network for a
considerable period. Examples of such schemes include installation of
a temporary roundabout junction or a diversion using a length of
temporary carriageway to allow major excavation on a main
carriageway. If a Project Sponsor is unsure if the scheme under
consideration should be subjected to Road Safety Audit, they should
formally consult with an appropriate Specialist from the Overseeing
Organisation.
1.6.3 Due to the complexities of the road network in London and the potential
impact TM can have on road user behaviour TfL policy necessarily goes
further than HD19. In many situations the guidance contained within the
national codes of practice is insufficient to guide designers to cover scenarios
likely to be encountered in London.
1.6.4 The policy states that such schemes will not generally require auditing unless
they remain in operation for a period of six months or more. Consideration
should be given to auditing temporary traffic management schemes that are to
remain in operation for a period of less than six months if a significant impact
on the highway network is anticipated.
1.6.5 For further information please refer to TfL’s RSA procedure SQA-0170 which
is located at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/road-safety
and the TfL RSA team can be contacted at: [email protected].
1.7 Designer’s responsibilities
1.7.1 The recently released Chapter 8 Part 3 U2.6 clarifies the roles, responsibilities
and resultant risk sharing of designers and authorities in planning the works.
1.7.2 It is for the designer to assess the site and design to meet the requirements of
Chapter 8, The Redbook, this guide and other nationally recognised industry
publications.
1.7.3 TfL under the New Roads and Street Works Act (NRSWA) have a duty to
coordinate and manage the impact of works on the TLRN and therefore may
impose restrictions and requirements upon the works without taking on a
designer’s role.
P a g e | 12
1.7.4 Irrespective of any restrictions and/or requirements TfL may impose, those
designing and undertaking the works have responsibility to ensure a safe
working methodology and the design of TM meets the needs of all road users
particularly the most vulnerable. Where it is felt this is not viable this must be
raised with protect sponsor and TfL to look at alternative solutions.
1.7.5 It is important for temporary traffic management designers to examine and
assess each and every site individually and not just apply standard layouts.
Each option should be carefully considered and risk assessed to ensure that
the most appropriate option is taken forward.
1.7.6 Designers must fully understand the limitations of ‘standard layouts’ and this
is especially true on the TLRN. Geometry of the road network, hazards, street
furniture, needs of road users all need to be taken into account. Generic
drawings are rarely fit for purpose without adaptation to the specific site.
In developing the most appropriate traffic management solution TfL
recommend a five point assessment in the planning stages of works:
Traffic Management Five Point Assessment
i. Identify the nature, location and duration of work;
ii. Evaluate the existing road layout noting road speed, features and
geometry, usage patterns/flows and modal demand (pedestrians,
cyclists, cars, buses & heavy/large goods vehicles (HGV/LGV’s));
iii. Define the working space requirements factoring in the works zone
working space and safety zones;
iv. Assess the remaining available space (traffic management
boundary to opposite kerb line) and how it can best be utilised.
v. Design the traffic management to balance/prioritise modal demand
with the works required.
1.8 Road works Patrols
1.8.1 TfL organise and undertake regular road works patrols inviting road users,
campaign groups, developers and works promoters to cycle and walk through
traffic management on the TLRN to experience and learn from using the road
network in temporary situations first hand.
1.8.2 Along the route the issues are discussed an analysed and the comments and
lessons learnt are collated into a report for dissemination to the group, site
managers and other stakeholders. The emphasis is on ensuring high quality
provision for vulnerable road users at works sites.
P a g e | 13
1.8.3 The patrol methodology has been a catalyst for change, especially in the way
TfL approaches road works design and conflict mitigation is being
incorporated into assessment procedures. This includes interventions such as
mandatory and advisory cycling facilities around road works and development
loading areas.
1.8.4 The patrols aim to deliver a first-hand learning opportunity for stakeholders to
experience travelling through a site first hand, analysing it from a different
perspective and enables non specialists to realise the constraints of good TM
design. An example of a report is included in Appendix 1A.
P a g e | 14
1.9 Appendix 1A: Road Works Patrol Example Reort
Roadworks Patrol – 22ND January 2018
Author: Michael Barratt TfL
Attendees
Michael Barratt (MB) TfL Newham Cyclists
Paul Gannon (PG) Newham Olawale Ajibola (OA)
Andy Osborne (AO) Met Police Laura Laker (LL) Kerena Fussell (KF)
Arnold Rideout (AR)
Road works Patrol Introduction The partnership is made up of TfL, cycling, pedestrian and other stakeholder groups.
The objectives of the exercise is; to on a regular basis, cycle and
walk through TfL and other major development schemes in
advance of or during build to ensure where possible that the traffic
management and construction management methods implemented
does not negatively impact on vulnerable road users.
P a g e | 15
A collaborative experience
Stratford Gyratory is presently undergoing major works as part of the town centre
improvements. Cycle tracks, footways and crossing points have been affected by the
temporary traffic management to facilitate the works.
To experience the road works from the cyclist and pedestrian perspective a patrol has been
arranged with Newham Project Team, Newham Cyclists, TfL and Met Police Cycle Safety
Team.
It must be highlighted that Newham Project Team have maintained a constant
dialogue with impacted groups which is of great value.
P a g e | 16
Pictures Observations, Suggestions & Newham response
Zone 1 (westbound) Broadway
Barrier system in place supplemented by orcas to form a visual cycle route. No protection at the rear of the HGV. Marshalling not present during this time.
Suggest barriers placed behind the vehicle to maintain visual traffic management.
Marshals to use stop works signs to manage cyclists during site vehicle manoeuvres.
Replace orcas with cylinders for improved visual segregation and safer environment.
The orcas are to be replaced by Cycle Lane Defenders.
The contractor has been advised of TM and marshalling.
Toucan crossing point very narrow and green man bulbs not working.
Investigate opportunities to widen area and report light failure to TfL
Light failure reported to TfL signals.
The widths of the crossings are being looked at with the intention to widen them as soon as space becomes available. There is a fine balance between closing a crossing and introducing a diversion or maintain a minimum width crossing.
P a g e | 17
Zone 2 (eastbound) High St
Curious to why cylinders have been placed at this location (picture far left). Orcas used for segregation.
Carriageway conditions are poor with a failing old reinstatement causing debris to be displaced in the cycle track. Potholes have also formed in the same area causing potential safety concerns for motorcyclists
Investigate opportunity for remedial works to improve surfacing.
Replace orcas with cylinders for improved visual segregation and safer environment.
Reinstatements will be undertaken over the coming weeks and cleansing of the running lanes will be investigated immediately.
Zone 3 (development sites) A118
There a number of development sites along the A118. Pedestrians have been supplied a walkway but no cycle facilities are included. Many of the closed of sections have been used for storage.
This area was not comfortable to cycle with high traffic volumes included buses and HGVs with width constraints.
Left hooking concerns also were raised by the group
Contact the developers to see if storage can be managed in such a way to regain some carriageway capacity for a cycle facility.
P a g e | 18
Clear and concise and well placed signage may alert drivers to the safety concerns.
Zone 4 (opposite Morrison’s) A118
Very narrow area for toucan crossing access for both pedestrians and cyclists. A lot of surface water was observed.
Investigate capacity opportunities to widen shared use areas and set up a sweeping regime to maintain thoroughfare.
The widths of the crossings are being looked at with the intention to widen them as soon
P a g e | 19
as space becomes available. There is a fine balance between closing a crossing and introducing a diversion or maintain a minimum width crossing.
Zone 5 The Grove (southbound)
Spoil location causing barriers to reduce full capacity of bi-directional track
Relocate spoil to the side to enable one free lane on the track. This can then operate as give and take (low cycle flows)
This issue has been raised with the contractor.
Zone 6 The Grove/Romford Rd (southbound)
Road markings are faded which has resulted in some vehicles encroaching into the ASL (observed on the ride). There are also left hooking concerns from Grove Rd to Romford Rd. Both issues could be due to the lack of visual road markings.
To look at upgrading lining
Refreshing of the white lining will be undertaken shortly.
P a g e | 20
Zone 7 Broadway (westbound)
Two lanes remaining due to lane one loss. A pedestrian route has been maintained but no cycle facility due to limited available capacity. High speeds and high flows of traffic cause an uncomfortable experience for cyclists.
Investigate non obtrusive placement of “Narrow Lanes No Overtaking Cyclists” signs.
The contractor has been made aware of this.
AOB
General observations
Vehicle Speeds
High speeds were observed around the entire gyratory.
Met Police to contact speed enforcement teams
Barrier placement
Many of the barriers were placed in such a way that access to the push buttons could be challenging for those less able especially visually impaired. Also, some barriers over sailed the carriageway (opposite the library) with some vehicles observed staying wide and straddling two lanes to avoid conflict.
Survey all signal locations that have barriers around them and ensure full access is maintained.
P a g e | 21
Check there are no barriers over sailing the kerbs.
This will be undertaken and where appropriate shrouds will be placed around the concrete blocks.
(Picture left) The toucan crossing point has barriers located in reducing crossing capacity and is causing a conflict point for pedestrians and cyclists. As with many locations the shared areas are narrow.
Investigate capacity increase to split the two modes at this location eg herris pulled in. Also to remove one of the barriers to widen crossing area.
This has been passed to the contractor to rectify.
P a g e | 22
2 Cyclists at Road Works
2.1 Designing for Cyclists at Road Works
2.1.1 The document describes why and how TfL and its partners expect particular
consideration to be given to the needs of cyclists on London’s streets. This
goes over and above the requirements set out in national guidance, while still
adhering to those principles.
2.1.2 The Redbook highlights the need for TM to take into account the needs of
disabled and older people in the planning and execution of works, which is a
duty placed on works promoters under the Equality Act 2010. Not all cyclists
can easily dismount, as are used as mobility aids, some types of cycle are
wider and longer than others (such as cargo/child carrying cycles and
tricycles), and some users are particularly sensitive to poor surface
conditions.
2.1.3 This document should be read in conjunction with the following documents to
provide a framework for considering temporary traffic management for
pedestrians and cyclists during street works and road works:
Safety at Street Works & Road Works, a Code of Practice (the ‘Red Book’, 2013 2nd impression with amendments)
Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 (2016):
Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 15/99 Cyclists at Road Works (1999).
2.2 General Principles
2.2.1 The Redbook states “You should consider whether access on the carriageway
can be preserved for cyclists, even if it needs to be closed to motor vehicles”
and TfL expect TM design should preserve or re-provide cycle facilities unless
there are insurmountable barriers to doing so. This includes:
Looking to preserve cycle access even when the carriageway is closed
to motor vehicles
Preserving or introducing exemptions, contraflows and cycle gaps to
maintain cycle accessibility during works
Creating temporary dedicated cycle facilities where necessary
P a g e | 23
2.2.2 For designated cycle routes or streets with high cycle flows, a level of service
reasonably equivalent to the permanent arrangement should be maintained.
Where all or part of the highway is closed on such streets, alternative suitable
quality provision should be found for cycles.
2.2.3 Shared facilities are not an easy option – they should be designed to work for
all parties. Cycles may be enabled to share general traffic lanes as part of
temporary traffic management only if speeds are appropriate for sharing
(which may require speed limits to be put in place) and if lane widths are
suitable. Footways may only reasonably be shared between pedestrians and
cyclists if sufficient width is available and if TM has been designed to
encourage courteous and responsible behaviour towards pedestrians, as the
more vulnerable user.
2.2.4 Road closures impacting people cycling need careful consideration. Diverting
cyclists should only be necessary for if it is not reasonably practicable to
preserve cycle access, such as by creating dedicated facilities or if suitable
accommodating cycles in temporary shared use facilities on footways.
Diversions must avoid unnecessarily long detours and should avoid mixing
cyclists with heavy construction traffic.
2.3 Maintaining access for cycling
2.3.1 Construction activities and temporary works impact all road users but it is vital
the needs of cyclists should be given appropriate consideration, particularly
when considering lane widths and diversion routes.
2.3.2 Where it may be necessary to close the road for motor vehicles, wherever
possible, access should be maintained for cyclists in both directions
throughout the period of road works, avoiding more hazardous diversions.
Cyclists are unlikely to accept lengthy detours or long delays. In such
conditions some cyclists will be tempted to ride contra-flow or use footways.
This can be avoided by, for instance, providing a temporary segregated cycle
lane, shared path or route away from the carriageway. This kind of provision
will be particularly desirable on dual carriageways.
P a g e | 24
2.3.3 Cyclists are generally more at risk through road works, so limiting the length
of the site should be considered. For example, if a scheme is to be
constructed over 100m and a cycle facility or wide traffic lanes (4m+) cannot
be provided, then it should where possible, be completed in shorter sections
to reduce the exposure of cyclists travelling through pinch points. If the length
of the work site cannot be adapted, and there is significant cycle demand,
then an alternative off road cycling facility or other measures such as a
general traffic diversion while retaining cycle access should be considered.
2.3.4 There are a number of potential hazards or impacts that must be considered
when designing ‘cycle friendly’ temporary traffic management on the
carriageway. These include:
Impact: E.g.: cyclists dismounting; removal or obstruction of existing cycle
lanes or tracks; road closures (without cyclist exemption) and
unacceptably long diversion routes; one-way working (without cyclist
exemption);
Signage & Guarding: E.g.: inappropriate use of temporary ‘cyclists
dismount’ signs (where a clear route has been maintained, cyclists should
still be able to use the carriageway); measures to avoid conflicts between
cyclists and pedestrians, such as with short temporary route alterations or
sharing space; cyclists entering the work site through cones or other
segregation measures;
Geometry: E.g.: pinch points that ‘squeeze’ cyclists; sightlines
Surface Condition: E.g.: poor temporary road surfaces, including raised
ironworks; raised cable protectors, hoses or road plates;
2.3.5 Traffic management signs in the approach zone to road works must not be
placed in the cycle lane unless all other options have been ruled out. Signs
which are placed in a cycle lane are highly likely to block the facility entirely;
potentially forcing cycles into a more hazardous situation, or at the very least
create unsafe and unacceptable pinch points.
2.3.6 Careful consideration needs to be given to selecting the most appropriate
equipment to segregate cyclists from the safety zones and protecting the
works area. In congested roads, cones alone may not be enough to prevent
cycles from entering the safety zone or works areas and additional barriers or
closer spaced cone delineation may deter safety zone breaches. For further
guidance on barriers and segregation see Section 4 of this guide (pending).
P a g e | 25
2.3.7 Where the work site requirements allow, the cone line or outer edge of the
segregation can often be pulled back from the lane markings on multilane
carriageways to allow more space for cycling and thus increase the nearside
lane width. This approach is especially important for sites immediately on the
approach to signalised junctions, where cyclists will filter through queuing
vehicles in order to reach the stop line.
2.4 Temporary Signing for Cyclists
2.4.1 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) defines the
specification for road signs in the UK. All temporary signs at road works must
meet these requirements. Further guidance is supplied in the DfT Traffic
Advisory Leaflet 01/14.
2.4.2 Designers must use prescribed signs where they exist before they design
other temporary signs which are covered in Schedule 13 Part 9. Where
designers need to create signs for cyclists under this provision they need to
be aware temporary signs must be white text on a red background. If the sign
contains a more general information message then it will be black on yellow.
2.4.3 As Schedule 13 Part 9 provision allows designers free reign within certain
parameters it can result in an almost infinite permutation of sign variants all
with a similar message. This can result in an inconsistent approach to signing,
especially and possible road user confusion when passing through multiple
works areas and creates. TfL wishes to promote consistency in terminology
and the following table should assist designers obtain the correct terminology.
Cycle Lane Part of a carriageway marked with a formal lane marking and allocated for use by cyclists. Cycle lanes can either be advisory (“dashed”) or mandatory (“solid”)
Cycle Track A right of way for pedal cycles with or without right of way on foot. It can either be:
Part of a public highway adjacent to a carriageway, or
A separate highway in its own right Pedestrians and cyclists may be separated by physical barriers, by level, or by markings only.
Cycle Route A continuous, linear series of links and junctions, signed and/or branded as a coherent facility from A to B; usually planned and delivered as a single facility or in identified phases. For road works which are local in nature signing should make reference to cycle lanes or tracks as appropriate. Only when a substantial section of a defined route is diverted on to an alternative road would reference be made to a route.
Cycle Path A non-specific term and should not be used on road traffic signs.
P a g e | 26
2.4.4 Temporary routes and other facilities for the exclusive use of cyclists should
be clearly signed well in advance of the road works.
2.4.5 Only when all other reasonable possibilities have been exhausted would TfL
deem it acceptable for a works promoter to utilise “CYCLISTS DISMOUNT
AND USE FOOTWAY” signs. In the vast majority of cases the network can be
managed to retain space for cycling and in many ways the sign is a last resort
option.
2.4.6 Where the “dismount” signs are necessary, works promoters should mitigate
the threat posed by those who wilfully ignore the signed instruction -
potentially placing pedestrians at risk, and equally be mindful not all cyclists
can easily dismount and proceed on foot, including some people using cycles
as mobility aids. Consideration should be given to the provision of marshals
on site to help less able people cycling, transition to proceeding on foot or
provide guidance and encourage others to dismount to reinforce compliance
of the signed instruction.
2.4.7 When signage is required to give instructions or information to cyclists (e.g.
CYCLE LANE CLOSED) designers must consider the need for advance
signing (e.g. CYCLE LANE AHEAD CLOSED), so that cyclists may alter their
road position in good time. This is especially important on declines and
sections of road with high cycle flows.
2.4.8 Where a cycle lane or cycle track is temporarily closed and cycles in order to
continue pass the works area are directed to use the parallel carriageway, TfL
would not require by default a cyclist diversion route to be signed. It should be
clear to cyclists approaching from either direction, where the facility is closed,
where they can safely join the carriageway and where the facility is re-
opened. Surplus signing can contribute to sign clutter and needless
maintenance issues.
2.4.9 For longer duration works semi-permanent sign installation maybe preferable
to temporary A frame signs to reduce trip hazards, reduce sign maintenance
and ensure the signs remain visible and effective at all times.
2.5 Avoiding cycle diversions
2.5.1 Where general traffic is proposed to be diverted onto other roads and where
there are significant cycle flows, the design should seek to retain a route for
people to cycle past the works if space permits, to avoid placing cyclists on
diversion. This will be particularly necessary where a diversion route would
fulfil one or more of these conditions:
P a g e | 27
The temporary works will be for a period longer than 5 days;
Involve significantly greater effort owing to distance and gradients;
Put cyclists at greater risk due to the road layout and traffic conditions;
2.5.2 References to an alternative route and route description may be included on
signs but this will not negate the requirement to sign along the route to comply
with Chapter 8.
2.5.3 Contraflow cycle facilities should be a recommended minimum of 1.5m or an
absolute minimum of 1.2m wide and may require some physical segregation
from opposing traffic, based on site-specific risk assessment. Opposing traffic
must have sufficient lane width not to encroach in this facility.
2.5.4 The London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) gives useful guidance on
defining effective widths.
2.6 Use of shared use footways
2.6.1 Sharing the footway between cycles and pedestrians is not generally
desirable and all TM design efforts should be made to accommodate cycles
safely on the track or carriageway. Where it is deemed necessary an
assessment of the cycle and pedestrian flows will need to be undertaken to
ensure the design is robust and viable.
2.6.2 Shared use footway can have significant variation in their characteristics
which may dramatically alter the optimum TM design solution. A local risk
assessment will need to factor in flows of cycles and pedestrians at different
times of day the works are due to take place, whether the route has any form
of segregation, length of works, the nature of the adjacent carriageway and
available space.
2.6.3 On partially separated and shared routes, cycle flow must be considered relative to pedestrian flow and so the categories provided in the LCDS shown below
Peak Flow categories Pedestrians per hour Cyclists per hour
Very Low 0-120 0-60
Low 120-200 60-150
Medium 200-450 150-300
High 450-900 300-450
Very High 900+ 450+
P a g e | 28
2.6.4 A width of 3 metres is the desirable minimum for shared path with two way
cycling but, this is dependent on user flows. On low usage footways with short
length and duration works this may be reduced to an absolute minimum of 2.2
metres. On shared use routes with single direction cycle routes the desirable
minimum width is 2.5 metres, however this maybe reduced with low usage
footways if the works are of a short length and duration to an absolute
minimum1.5 metres.
2.6.5 Designers considering shared use facilities will need to also factor in the
requirement for a Temporary Consolidated Suspension Request (TCSR) and
a detailed assessment through the TMAN process.
Image pending
2.7 Road closures and cycles
2.7.1 Road closures can present unique issues for cyclists. Diversion routes must
be assessed for their suitability for cycling as well as motor vehicles as from a
cyclist perspective they may appear as being overly long or arduous. If some
cyclists find an apparent short cut more attractive, this may result in unsafe
short-cuts through junctions, prohibited or illegal use of footway riding.
P a g e | 29
2.7.2 In the first instance the site should be assessed with the aim of maintaining a
safe route for cyclists past the works. While a closure to motor traffic may be
necessary, exceptions can be made for cycles, which can use relatively
narrow widths (but ideally no less than 1.5m).
2.7.3 Signage stating “ROAD CLOSED EXCEPT CYCLES” or a no entry sign with
an “Except cycles” sub-plate would be suitable signs to use at the entry point.
2.7.4 Care must be taken to ensure the design makes it clear to all road users,
especially pedestrians, which cycles are permitted through a closure point.
Where cycles pass through a point closed to motor traffic it should not come
as a surprise to pedestrians crossing the road. Barriers and other methods of
separation may well be required to mitigate any risk.
2.7.5 Where cycle diversion routes are necessary they must be short as practicable
to desire lines and clearly signed, preferably using routes with light traffic
flows. Often cycles can legally pass through routes prohibited to motor
vehicles and cars such as through parkland and roads with filtered
permeability such bollard protected cul-de-sacs.
Tooley Street, London Bridge. To facilitate the London Bridge Station
upgrade works it was necessary to close Tooley Street to eastbound motor
traffic. A diversion route would have been a significant obstruction for cyclists
so a solution was found to permit cycles to continue in an eastbound direction
within a protected cycle lane.
P a g e | 30
2.8 Cycling and Lane widths
2.8.1 The arterial nature of the TLRN, particularly in central areas consequentially is
heavily used by large goods vehicles, buses and a large number of cyclists
2.8.2 The first priority of any traffic management designer is to design out risk and
remove the hazard and consequential need for signage. Retaining or re-
providing facilities for cycles which are equivalent to the pre-existing level of
service is the preferred option. Where cycles are accommodated on-
carriageway, however it is acknowledged that maintaining the same level of
service may not always be feasible due to physical constraints. Where cycles
are required to share space with motor vehicles past the works site then the
lane widths require careful consideration.
2.8.3 As identified in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 “Cyclists at Road Works” lane
widths of 4 metres or more, enable cars and larger, wider vehicles to overtake
cyclists. Where possible designers should therefore look to maintain or create
lane widths of at least 4 metres on carriageways where they expect a
significant number of cyclists.
2.8.4 If a 4 metre wide lane is not achievable, then the design objective must be to
deter overtaking because it cannot be done with safe clearance. The lane
width should therefore be reduced to a maximum of 3.5 metres. As
established in TAL 15/99, widths between 3.25 metres - 3.5 metres will allow
buses and heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) to use the lane but it will not be
possible for them to overtake cycles.
2.8.5 Lane widths greater than 3.5 metres and less than 4 metres are avoided
because within these widths wider vehicles may attempt to overtake cyclists
when there is insufficient space to do so. Furthermore 3.25m is the desirable
minimum lane width in temporary situations for buses and HGV’s.
2.8.6 In exceptional circumstances this may be reduced to an absolute minimum of
3.0m as per the Redbook. If this is on a bus route you will need to liaise with
TfL Buses to discuss the restrictions and possible impact on the bus services.
2.8.7 The cited lane widths are based on straight or near straight traffic
management layouts. For layouts incorporating bends or geometry that is not
linear in nature the designer may alter the widths as necessary and may
require to undertake swept path analysis to indicate the tracking of vehicles is
viable pass the works.
P a g e | 31
2.8.8 However, research shows that traffic lane widths between 3.2 and 3.9 metres
where there is no dedicated cycle lane, lead to uncomfortably close passes of
cycles because drivers are left uncertain about whether it is safe to overtake.
2.8.9 Reducing the speed of traffic should also be considered, particularly if the
temporary situation is likely to reduce lane widths to make cyclists feel
uncomfortable. Chapter 8 D3.32.15 states:
“In situations where motor vehicles are unable to pass cyclists safely, for example,
where the effective lane width is less than 3.5 m, the use of temporary speed limits
should be considered, backed by the appropriate enforcement methods, where
feasible.”
2.8.10 To minimise the risk arising from cyclists being overtaken too closely in a
narrow lane and to promote increased comfort levels for cyclists TfL
recommends the use of the following sign which must meet the design
requirements set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2016, with particular reference to Schedule 13 Part 9. Appendix 2B of this
handbook contains a working drawing to assist sign manufactures.
Figure 1: The Narrow lanes do not overtake cyclists sign face to be used in qualifying
temporary situations.
2.8.11 The sign should be placed on all approaches after the road narrows or lane
closure (wicket board) signs and prior to the first cone. To summarise the
advice given in the above section on lane widths, the sign should only be
used in the following circumstances where all of the conditions apply:
Where cycles are required to share a lane with motor vehicles as no suitable alternative facility is achievable;
Where the carriageway is either a single carriageway of any speed limit or a dual carriageway where the permanent road speed limit is 30mph or less;
Where there is only a single lane available for traffic in the given direction.
Where the available lane width is 3.5 metres or less;
P a g e | 32
2.8.12 Figure 2 below summarises the carriageway lane widths for the TLRN where
the road section is characterised by moderate to high cycle usage
Figure 2: Appropriate lane widths for using the Narrow lanes do not overtake cyclists sign.
2.8.13 Most commonly the available lane width will encompass the normal running
lane but it may also include hatched areas where traffic is permitted to enter in
certain situations.
2.8.14 The sign should not normally be deployed in other situations as inappropriate
use dilutes the message in scenarios where it is appropriate and needed. On
40mph and high-speed dual carriageways, the sign is not likely to be
appropriate as the carriageway is unlikely to be used by cyclists and
designers should adopt alternative methods of safely managing traffic.
2.8.15 Narrow lanes may not be the only reason why there may be a design to
instruct drivers not to overtake cyclists. Greater risk at bends and corners may
also justify a ‘do not overtake’ sign.
2.9 Temporary speed reduction
2.9.1 Where road widths are limited but sufficient volumes of cycle traffic exists,
consideration should be given to lowering the speed limit or a temporary
maximum speed recommendation to encourage motorised vehicles to either
safely overtake or follow cyclists in accordance with Chapter 8. Lowering the
speed limit will require a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO).
2.9.2 Police should not be relied upon to enforce temporary speed limits unless it
has been explicitly agreed upon in advance.
P a g e | 33
2.10 Barriers and cyclists
2.10.1 When selecting barrier products for longitudinal runs along which cyclists may
pass, designers need to ensure the feet or bases of the barrier do not
introduce a hazard to pedals of the bicycles.
2.10.2 In areas where slow moving or stationary traffic is expected, continuous
barrier on or adjacent to the boundary of a site, will provide a more robust
barricade rather than solely relying on traffic cones, even if closely spaced.
However, the assessment of whether to use barrier needs to factor in
pedestrian movements, as continuous barrier makes the delineation
impermeable to pedestrians and other types of low level barrier could become
trip hazards.
Image pending
2.11 Surface quality
2.11.1 It should be borne in mind that cyclists are particularly vulnerable to uneven,
slippery or excessively rough surfaces. Consideration should be given to
phasing of works to avoid hazardous surfaces and raised ironwork and to
avoid channelling cyclists into hazards.
2.11.2 Where raised iron work is unavoidable, consideration should be given to
marking the ironwork in a contrasting colour to improve visibility, in addition to
warning signs.
P a g e | 34
2.11.3 If cyclists are to be signed via a diversion route, then the surfacing on this
alternative alignment should be assessed and made safe if necessary before
the diversion is introduced.
2.12 Temporary traffic signals
2.12.1 Temporary traffic signals should give cyclists sufficient opportunity to pass
safely through road works with the appropriate intergreen times used to
prevent collisions or unsafe passing with oncoming motor vehicles in a shuttle
lane. When specifying the most appropriate arrangements, consideration
should be given to clearance times for cyclists, particularly on steep hills.
2.12.2 When a traffic management drawing is submitted to TfL with portable traffic
signals the drawing and location will be assessed and we may provide signal
timings to the designer for implementation otherwise the contractor will be
expected to operate them as agreed or in line with the recommendations of
the Department for Transports “An Introduction to the use of Portable
Vehicular Signals” otherwise known as the “Pink book”.
2.13 Works on the carriageway without cycle lanes
2.13.1 Where works areas occupy an area in the carriageway where there is no
permanent provision for cycles, it is not normally expected that a temporary
cycle lane would be required for the works, unless the road layout and/or
workspace requirements place cyclists into a significantly more vulnerable
position as identified in a risk assessment.
2.13.2 Where there is an identifiable increased risk to cyclists, consideration should
be given to providing a facility through temporary carriageway markings or
physical segregation. Risks may include heavy traffic flows, poor surface
quality, construction traffic movements etc. A key consideration in addition to
the risk will be the available space on the carriageway and the resultant lane
widths available. For further information please see Section 2.8 regarding lane
widths.
2.13.3 This scenario is more likely to be identified in outer London boroughs, where
the mix of cycles in relation to motor traffic is very different from inner London.
However, sections of the road network exist in many locations where no extra
provision is required provided lane widths are generous and hazards are low.
2.13.4 In these circumstances the traffic management may look typically generic with
no extra measures for cyclists, except for signage to warn of narrow lanes
when the width is 3.5m or less if required.
P a g e | 35
2.13.5 The worksite length should be kept to a minimum to reduce the impact on
general traffic and discomfort for cyclists. Long stretches of traffic
management can become intimidating for cyclists and frustrating for motorists.
When considering the length of traffic management arrangements, designers
will also need to be mindful of the likely speeds of cyclists passing through the
works as their speed may be adversely affected by gradients.
Image pending
2.14 Works on the carriageway with cycle lanes
2.14.1 Where there is a cycle lane within the carriageway that will become
obstructed by the safety zones or working area then it will be expected that
facility will be re-provided past the temporary works, unless the risk to cyclists
has been deemed acceptably low.
2.14.2 Where the temporary segregation terminates, care needs to be taken to
ensure cyclists re-join the carriageway in a safe manner and location. Both
drivers and cyclists need good visibility of each other and the alignment of
their respective approaches should ensure a smooth transition.
2.14.3 If it is not viable to provide delineation or segregation, it would be expected
designers consider risk mitigation using other measures, such as using
hazard warning signage, separation of road users by diverting motor vehicles
or cyclists via different routes.
P a g e | 36
2.14.4 Designers need to be mindful of cyclist behaviours and the possibility of
cyclists entering and exiting the facility between cylinders. Where it is
desirable to retain cyclists in a lane or prevent access/egress along the lane
then continuous barriers would substantially mitigate the risk.
2.14.5 The closure of a mandatory cycle lane will not require a traffic order as long
as cyclists are able to continue past the works without diversion from line of
route e.g. via a lane in the carriageway. However, wherever the traffic
management directs non-works vehicles into a mandatory cycle lane, a
Temporary Consolidated Suspension Request (TCSR) application is required
to suspend the “cycles only” provision of the cycle lane traffic order during its
hours of operation. A TSCR will not be required for works vehicles to enter the
cycle lane provided they are accessing/egressing or parked within the
confines of the worksite.
2.14.6 Cycle lanes are classed as being in the carriageway and therefore subject to
Lane Rental charges in accordance with the charges for the adjacent running
lanes if applicable.
Image pending
P a g e | 37
2.15 Works on cycle tracks
2.15.1 Segregated cycle facilities feature on many sections of the TLRN and provide
a vital network for cyclists on key routes which provide enhanced cycle safety
through separation from motor vehicles.
2.15.2 Segregated cycle tracks, particularly bi-directional tracks, present challenging
issues for TM designers as considerations need to be given to managing the
passage of pedestrians, cycles and motor vehicles all with separate facilities
which will frequently intersect. Signalised junctions will need very detailed
consideration and consultation with TfL will be required to ensure TM designs
can be operable and safe in conjunction with the phasing of the lights.
2.15.3 Where partial obstruction of the segregated cycle tracks is required, the same
signing principles apply to cycle traffic as to general vehicular traffic. TfL
recommend 2 metres as a minimum width for temporary works during periods
of low traffic flows for two way traffic flows and 1.5 metre for one way flows.
For medium or high flows 3 metres plus will be required. For further guidance
please refer to the LCDS.
2.15.4 It is paramount that cones or barriers marking the segregation boundary are in
good order and well maintained. Barriers with protruding feet should be
generally avoided as there is an increased risk to cyclists snagging pedals,
especially as cyclists are likely to pass close to the barrier.
2.15.5 Where works require the total obstruction of the cycle facility, it will be
incumbent upon the designer to seek in the first instance to re-provide a
segregated facility of similar level of service past the works. This will most
likely require routing the cycle track into the carriageway but if this is not
possible, cycles could potentially be directed onto the footway by the creation
of a shared use footway to enable cycles to continue without dismounting.
P a g e | 38
Image pending
2.15.6 Segregated cycle tracks do not require a TTRO to be closed to cyclists as
long as cyclists are able to continue past the works without diversion from line
of route e.g. via a lane in the carriageway. However a TCSR will be required
for works vehicles which are not exempt. Exemptions are:
Statutory undertaker’s activities;
Highway Authority works;
Works under s50 NRSWA 1991;
Emergency works;
Highway cleansing;
Action by a Highway Authority to deal with an obstruction, highway
nuisance or other interference
2.15.7 Segregated cycle tracks are classed as being in the carriageway and
therefore subject to Lane Rental charges in accordance with the charges for
the adjacent running lanes if applicable.
P a g e | 39
2.16 Appendix 2A: Cyclists and temporary TM design checklist
Develop new version(s) of the checklist below:
Project name:
Location:
Road number: TLRN / SRN / borough?
AADT (two-way):
Peak hour cycle flow (two-
way):
Per cent of commercial
vehicles
Existing cycle facilities Proposed temporary cycle facilities
Direction 1: Direction 1:
Direction 2: Direction 2:
Junction 1: Junction 1:
Junction 2: Junction 2:
Existing speed limit (mph): Proposed speed limit (mph):
Existing no. of lanes: Proposed no. of lanes:
Existing nearside lane width
(m) if no cycle lane:
Proposed nearside lane
width (m) if no cycle lane:
Y, N or n/a
Existing cycle facilities maintained? If not, see below.
Lane widths appropriate for cyclists?
Alternative off-carriageway cycle facility necessary?
Temporary off carriageway cycle facility signed and TTRO?
Intergreen timings at temporary signals suitable for cyclists?
P a g e | 40
Intergreen timings suitable for cyclists on steep gradients?
Temporary signal cables in existing ducts or use wireless
portable traffic signals?
Temporary ASL provided if temp signals layout over 30 days?
Barriers / closely spaced cones to deter cycle encroachment?
Cycle ‘escape areas’ provided, where continuous barriers?
Length and number of pinch points minimised?
All access maintained for cyclists?
Off line cycle diversion required?
Cycle safety, and surface checked on diversion?
Cyclists at Road Works – Guidance Document 15
Cyclists dismount signs provided? Only if all alternatives have been
rejected?
Cycling prohibited signs provided, if no suitable alternative?
If narrow lanes, ‘do not overtake cyclists’ signs specified?
Offside merge provided on two lane carriageways?
Bus stops suspended in works area?
Is a Road Safety Audit required as per TfL SQA0170?
P a g e | 41
2.17 Appendix 2B: Working drawing for Narrow lane do not overtake cyclists
P a g e | 42
2.18 Appendix 2C: Case Study – A Traffic Management Scheme on a
Segregated Cycle Track
Location: Victoria Embankment Date, time & duration of works: 05/12/2017 - 06/01/2017 24 hours a day for 1
month Works description:
National Grid had a gas leak on the 36” medium pressure main on Victoria
Embankment, just west of Temple Avenue (opposite Inner Temple Garden). The
initial plan to repair the gas leak using a Core and Vac and a CCTV camera, which
would have meant the CSH was still maintained, however this was unsuccessful and
the only other option was to excavate fully in the East / West.
This was a medium pressure gas main situated 4m below ground and was critical to
supplying gas across the City.
Traffic management proposal: The original proposal was a full closure of the Cycle Superhighway (CSH) and a contraflow on the carriageway to maintain one lane for traffic in each direction, to facilitate this we would have to close one of the two westbound lanes. The challenges: TfL knew from previous experience that:
1. Closing a lane westbound could result in delays to the Rotherhithe Tunnel; 2. Extra traffic delays could create pollution; 3. Generally cyclists would not dismount and therefore we could have safety
issues; 4. Closing the CSH could have been dangerous as this is a popular cycle route
and was used by some people that may not be proficient with cycling in the road;
5. Because of the new road layout, signal arrangement and proximity of the gas leak there was various issues as to how and where you could safely put cyclists in the road;
6. Using the footway to dismount cyclists was an issue because cyclists would have to walk a great distance with their bikes to pass the works, furthermore would they ?
The footway was congested with street furniture and trees.
The footway was uneven in some places due to tree roots.
Fortunately the gas main was situated on the riverside of Victoria Embankment and
there were no buildings to which the gas could escape into. This meant that National
P a g e | 43
Grid were able to monitor the gas levels and worked with TfL and our contractors to
formulate a way to complete works with minimal disruption.
Working with National Grid and CVU TfL formulated a plan which meant that the
CSH east/west route was closed but we were able to provide segregated hard
barriered temporary CSH and maintain the existing number of lanes.
This was achieved by removing two sections of the segregation island and the kerb
stones to create temporary crossovers along this stretch of the CSH. The road was
relined to maintained the same number of lanes, albeit more narrow. Lane Rental
funding was granted to National Grid, to assist with the costs associated to removing
sections of the Island, on the basis of the extraordinary measures.
Due to the narrow lanes TfL created a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO)
to reduce the speed limit to 20 mph which enabled the City Police to enforce and
undertake daily speed checks.
These works also had to be coordinated with the Thames Tideway Tunnel project
starting on the 4th January and involved coordination across TfL departments.
P a g e | 44
3 Pedestrians at Road works
3.1 Walking in London
3.1.1 The Mayor of London and the Walking and Cycling Commissioner aim to
improve environments for pedestrians in London to help encourage more
walkable journeys as a part of a long term Healthy Streets plan which can be
achieved by making the streets healthier, safer and more welcoming.
3.1.2 Temporary works on London’s roads if not carefully managed can present a
significant barrier to walking and could deter pedestrians due to confusion of
the routes, unsuitable footway surfaces, fear of crime and footway congestion.
3.1.3 London like many major world cities has higher flows of pedestrians than
would typically be found in most urban centres. Furthermore, in comparison to
other parts of the UK, particularly in central London, many pedestrians are
visitors and tourists from overseas who are inherently unfamiliar with UK
highways, traffic behaviour and signage. Works promoters need to be mindful
of the risks this can generate and develop a safe system of work from a
robust risk assessment.
3.2 Design Principles for Pedestrians
3.2.1 The London Pedestrian Design Guidance, currently being developed sets out
seven key principles for good street design which jointly promotes improved
road safety and supports a more attractive and better-quality walking
experience. These principles can be equally applied to temporary situations
and traffic management designers should give each principle due
consideration when formulating a pedestrian strategy at works sites.
Principle Indicator Particularly associated with particular
topics (in bold) for:
Safety Walking environments should be
safe to use and feel safe to spend
time in
Addressing potential Safety issues to encourage Safer
vehicle Speeds. Improving Personal Safety to remove
barriers of undesirable routes. Levels of Service to
identify suitable space on Footway Surfaces and
crossings. Appropriate Crossings to remove severance
and support accessibility for all pedestrians.
Comfort Walking environments should allow
unhindered movement for all
pedestrians and meet demand
Levels of Service on Footway Surfaces and at
Crossings to support safe pedestrian behaviour and
make walking an enjoyable experience.
Inclusivity Walking environment should
support all types of pedestrians to
improve accessibility by creating
inclusive streets and places
Suitable Crossings to meet pedestrian Desire-Lines.
Assessing Levels of Service to ensure sufficient space
on all Footway Surfaces. Improving Personal Safety
by creating more permeable routes. Well aligned Street
Furniture including rest points. Using Contrast and
Texture to add attractiveness, while supporting legibility
P a g e | 45
in places for visually impaired pedestrians.
Directness Walking environments should not
be obstructive, allowing easy and
convenient routes to create
permeable and connected places
for all pedestrians
Crossings that meet pedestrian Desire-lines and
support a straight -across arrangement where feasible.
Ensuring Levels of Service remove pinch points and
deviations in routes for pedestrians. Appropriate, good
quality Footway Surfaces and the provision of Legible
London Wayfinding to improve the permeability of
walking environments.
Legibility Walking environments should be
legible for all pedestrians to know
intuitively what places are for and
who has priority at any given time.
By the use of attractive and good quality Footway
Surfaces. Providing suitable Crossings that meet
pedestrian Desire lines and their demand to ensure
Road Safety. Levels of Service to predict comfort,
consider where Sharing is feasible and managing
Pedestrian and Other Road User Facilities
Attractiveness Walking environments should be
inviting for pedestrians to go
through or spend time in.
Applying attractive and good quality Footway
Surfaces. Well aligned Street Furniture. Providing
suitable Crossings that meet pedestrian Desire lines.
Addressing potential Road Safety and Personal
Safety issues. Encouraging Safe Vehicle Speeds and
the use of Supporting Measures to create pedestrian
friendly environments. Considering the upkeep of
benefits through Maintenance and Monitoring
Connectivity Walking environments should
support key walking routes to meet
pedestrian desire lines. Street
quality should be consistent to
ensure attractiveness is not in
isolated areas to support the
permeability of places.
Ensuring good quality Footway Surfaces and Levels
of Service. Suitable Crossings to meet pedestrian
Desire lines and their demand. Addressing potential
Road Safety issues. Improving Personal Safety by
creating more permeable routes. Providing Legible
London Wayfinding to assist spatial awareness of
surrounding routes for ease and comfort.
3.3 Inclusive access
3.3.1 The Red Book which has legal backing under Sections 65 and 124 of the New
Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and section 174 of the Highways Act 1980
states:
“You must take into account the needs of children, older people and disabled people, having particular regard for visually impaired people …” and you must provide: “… a safe route suitable for people using wheelchairs, mobility scooters, prams or pushchairs”
P a g e | 46
3.3.2 Temporary situations without proper planning and robust risk assessments
can result in reduced comfort to the public and people being placed at risk.
Disabled pedestrians and especially blind or partially sighted people are
particularly vulnerable. It is also of vital importance to view a site from a child’s
perspective. Children’s do not perceive danger in the same way as adults and
they can often see worksites as fun places to enter or tamper with equipment
for enjoyment or out of curiosity.
3.3.3 Unlike drivers of motorised vehicles who are trained and tested to use a
vehicle on the highway, pedestrians in many cases will not have the same
knowledge of traffic signs and are permitted to use all areas of a highway.
Their unawareness must be considered to ensure design proposals are as
naturally intuitive as possible.
3.3.4 These considerations are even more imperative on footways with extremely
high pedestrian’s flows or space is constrained. In these circumstances sign
placement needs very careful consideration to avoid creating footway pinch
points or obstacles, particularly for disabled pedestrians and to ensure the
signs are not obscured by the volume of pedestrians, TM proposals should
clearly demonstrate how this will be achieved.
3.3.5 In practice, this means that an inclusive design approach must be used for
temporary arrangements and that reasonable adjustments must be made to
help disabled pedestrians travel easily. Every pedestrian should be able to
use the street independently and with confidence at any time of day. Two
fundamental statements which must always be kept in mind are:
The Red book key questions:
Will someone using the road or footway from any direction understand exactly what is happening and what is expected of them?
Have I made the site safe to work in and for the general public?
Chapter 8 Part 3
U1.4.2 Underlying the design of temporary traffic management arrangements should
be the aim to achieve a level of safety and road user comprehension no worse than
the rate for non-works conditions …
P a g e | 47
3.3.6 Pedestrian comfort should be maintained in relation to predicted flows. TfL’s
Pedestrian Comfort Guidance highlights the need to devise suitable space
and recommends if space permits a 2m wide footway to allow two
wheelchairs to pass each other. 1.5m is the minimum in low use areas.
However, this will depend on the length of the works and may a provision for
waiting space.
3.3.7 Pedestrian provision should feel safe and avoid creating environments that
could lead to crime or anti-social behaviour. TfL has a duty to give due regard
to consider the implications of crime and disorder under Section 17 of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1988. TM proposals should therefore be assessed for
security and feeling of safety, as well as the basic amenity required by the
Red Book.
3.3.8 Consequentially designers should particularly give due regard to potential
ambush points caused by hoarding or fencing, design works sites to avoid
litter traps, maintain good lighting and remove areas where packages could
be concealed.
3.3.9 As the Red Book clarifies, TM must take into account the needs of children,
older people and people with disabilities, particularly those with sight
impairments. It must provide a safe route that is suitable also for people with
small children, pushchairs, wheelchairs and mobility scooters. These issues
must also be considered in the context of the Equality Act (2010), which
places a legal obligation on public bodies to have due regard to the need to
advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
3.4 Safe Routing
3.4.1 The Redbook has a hierarchy of providing safe routes for pedestrians when
works obstruct a footway, either in part or wholly, and makes it clear that a
temporary walkway should only be provided in the carriageway if it is not
possible to provide a safe pedestrian access on the footway.
3.4.2 However, when this process is applied to footways characterised by high or
very high pedestrian flows, typical of many central urban areas, designers will
need to risk assess the impact of a total closure (or substantially restrictive
partial closure) and the probability of pedestrians to reroute as directed. If
crossings become overly congested or the perceived detour to the pedestrian
desire line is viewed as significant, it is probable that a significant number of
pedestrians will opt to ignore the signs instructions and walk outside barriers
in the live carriageway adjacent to the closed footway.
P a g e | 48
3.4.3 A robust traffic management design shall cater for expected public behaviour
and not expect road users to behave as desired in a theoretical circumstance.
It will therefore often be the case in these situations the safest solution to
manage pedestrians is to provide a walkway of sufficient width in the
carriageway. This will often retain pedestrians closest to their original desire
line and re-provide pedestrian capacity on the network.
3.4.4 At temporary works, where there is a risk of pedestrians not understanding or
disregarding signing to cross the road at the identified crossing points,
pedestrian barriers should be considered to guide them to crossing facilities
and prevent people crossing in potentially dangerous locations.
3.4.5 Some locations are subject to crowding, such as outside stadiums, concert
venues, major transport hubs and major events. The type of barrier used in
these situations should be suitable for crowd management and safe for
emergency evacuations of adjacent premises and facilities.
3.5 Footway Closures
3.5.1 Ordinarily a notice is not required to close the footway if footway an adjacent
walkway is maintained or an alternative pedestrian route is provided.
3.5.2 A notice will be required if:
No pedestrian route along the highway can be maintained;
A subway is to be closed;
A footbridge is to be closed.
3.5.3 In all situations an alternative diversion route needs to be identified. The route
must be as close to the original desire line as possible and accessible and
reasonable for pedestrians with mobility impairments.
3.5.4 Where an alternative pedestrian route has been identified the designer must
have due regard that that footway surface is of good condition free from slip
and trip hazards. Where the route is over a verge then it should be surfaced
with a temporary covering that is suitable for all pedestrians with special
consideration for wheelchair users, visually impaired and the elderly.
3.5.5 Access to all affected properties must be maintained and assistance provided
where necessary for pedestrians who may require it.
P a g e | 49
3.6 Personal Safety and Security
3.6.1 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (revised) places an obligation
on local authorities and the Mayor of London to do all they reasonably can to
prevent crime, disorder and behaviour affecting the local environment.
3.6.2 When rerouting pedestrians with high barriers or hoarding, street lighting
needs to be sufficient to illuminate the footway surface to prevent slips and
trips and critically also to avoid casting shadows and dark ambush points
which may facilitate crime. Barriers and hoarding should be chamfered and/or
angled where necessary to prevent hiding places and anti-social conduct.
This helps improve personal safety and discourages anti-social behaviour.
3.6.3 Worksites should be regularly inspected as well as standard maintenance.
This is to ensure any litter accumulating in the confines of the site or the
public facing boundaries of the site is properly disposed. Barriers in situ for
prolonged periods can often trap litter which is both unsightly and potentially
an obstacle pedestrians may have to navigate past.
3.6.4 The MI5 security threat levels since 2006 have consistently fluctuated
between SUBSTANTIAL (a terrorist attack is a strong possibility) to CRITICAL
(an attack is expected imminently). All contractors and members of the public
are reminded to remain alert to the danger of terrorism and report any
suspicious activity to the police on 999 or the anti-terrorist hotline: 0800 789
321. If any package or equipment within the confines of the site or nearby
appears suspicious, report it immediately.
3.7 Pedestrian Barrier Selection
3.7.1 All pedestrian barrier systems must comply with the following standards:
BS 8442:2015: Miscellaneous road traffic signs and devices.
BS EN 12899-1:2007 Fixed, vertical road traffic signs
Safety at Street Works & Road Works (the “Redbook”)
The Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8
Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016
3.7.2 Further to the above specifications The Department for Transport advise,
pedestrian barriers should comprise of a frangible system unless it has been
identified pedestrians are at special risk. Thus in normal circumstances work
promoters and contractors must be aware that metal crowd control barriers
and similar products are unlikely to be suitable.
P a g e | 50
3.7.3 Where footways are subject to very high pedestrians flows/crowding or high
winds, barrier systems should be reinforced with ballast in accordance with
manufacturers guidelines or replaced more suitably robust and heavy duty
barriers to ensure they remain stable under loading.
3.7.4 In exceptional or special circumstances a viable pedestrian route may be
necessary in a dual carriageway or high speed road. Then consideration
should be given to providing protection with a tested and approved vehicle
restraint system. At all times the design of the walkway must consider
disabled pedestrians, particularly those with visual impairments.
3.7.5 Where there is a reasonable expectation that pedestrians may encounter the
boundary of a works site, it is not acceptable to use tape (barrier tape, tiger
tape, zebra tape, hazard warning tape etc.) or rope/chain in place of an
approved barrier system to the above mentioned specifications.
3.7.6 To better facilitate disabled pedestrians low trip hazard feet are recommended
which removes a trip hazard risk and gives greater visual awareness of
potential trip hazards.
3.7.7 Where children can be reasonably expected to use the footway it is unlikely
that modular post and plank style barriers will not offer sufficient barrier to
children who could easily climb through the large gaps. This is especially
important near schools, parks, residential estates and similar environments
where often children will be unsupervised by adults.
3.7.8 Commonly utilised mesh security fencing should not be used in place of
compliant pedestrian barrier when used to secure site boundaries on the
footway as it does not meet the specification outline above.
3.8 Temporary Pedestrian Signage and Information
3.8.1 Temporary pedestrian traffic signs if they are not already prescribed should be
white on red in accordance with the specifications as detailed in Schedule 13
Part 9 of the TSRGD 2016.
3.8.2 Where pedestrians are required to be redirected and diverted around the
works area, the initial the alternative route should be sensibly apparent
without the need to supply signs at every turn point on the route.
P a g e | 51
3.8.3 If it is reasonably foreseeable the only viable route is confusing or convoluted
then temporary pedestrian traffic signs will need to be installed. These may
also be complimented with Legible London pedestrian wayfinding signs to
assist pedestrians reorientation onto their intended route. Throughout the
works pedestrian behaviour should be monitored with assistance offered to
those that need it.
P a g e | 52
3.8.4 Where a shorter and more convenient pedestrian route is available which is
not fully accessible, this may be signed as an alternative route provided the
longer fully accessible route is clearly communicated.
3.9 Working adjacent to or at permanent crossings
3.9.1 Where a works encroaches onto a crossing area or restricts a crossing point
on the footway and the crossing is sufficiently wide to remain open for use,
the crossing points should be restricted with barrier so that pedestrians may
only walk directly across the crossing without having to alter course to
navigate around the works area.
P a g e | 53
3.10 Portable crossing facilities
3.10.1 To minimise congestion and pollution from stationary traffic the setting for
pedestrian crossing phases should be carefully considered and subsequently
monitored. Sections of road with strong peaks and tidal flows of pedestrian
activity such as near schools or events then manual control may be required
to hold the all red setting to permit larger numbers of pedestrians to cross at
the times it is needed most.
3.10.2 Where permanent signalised crossing facilities are required to be switched out
to facilitate works it is incumbent on the designer to provide a safe temporary
crossing for pedestrians. TfL would ordinarily expect temporary pedestrian
crossing systems to be deployed unless it is deemed impractical to do so. If
not practical, a robust and risk assessed alternative provision must be
incorporated into the design.
P a g e | 54
4 Feedback & Development
4.1 Feedback
4.1.1 The TfL traffic management working group would welcome constructive
feedback, comments and suggestions from stakeholders on this guidance via
[email protected]. For site specific assessments please apply to
TfL through the usual channels.
5 References
Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8;
Safety at Street Works and Road Works (the “Redbook”);
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99;
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/14;
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 03/11;
London Cycling Design Standards;
Local Transport Note 2/08, Cycle Infrastructure Design;
Local Transport Note 01/12 Shared use routes for pedestrians and cyclists;
Healthy Streets for London 2017.
London Pedestrian Design Guidance